Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D...

[sidious618]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Talk about missing the point.

What point? There was no point, other than a weak attempt to try and paint this woman as a potential pedophile because she posed in Playboy.

That wasn't my point. I'm saying that due to teachers having sex with students the schools are on edge and that is why she was fired. I never defended the school's action, as a matter of fact I think it's ridiculous, but I was trying to explain their line of thinking.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

I think the fact that more people will now buy the issue to see her naked because of the publicity makes a double standard on the school board. If they did not bring such a fuss, at the most a few people will see, rumors will a bound, but in the end, it wouldn't have as bad as these puritans would have proclaimed it to be.

Posing nude in a magazine does equate sexual offense nor does it mean that woman will start violating her students or former students. You might as well institute a dress code that includes no skin except for face and hands, individual urinals will have walls and doors, chastity belts will be issued, and sex will be taught as though it was a crime. I wonder what culture in our history that had similar attitudes: Puritans, the Gilded Age (Victorian Age), and the fifties. We all know what kind of Generations that the caused: Roaring Twenties and the free love of Sixties and Seventies.

If it was in her contract, then she should not have signed it, but since she did, the Nazi school board had every right to fire her.

 

[Gertch]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

the Nazi school board had every right to fire her.

The public school board has every right to fire her. Unless you can point it out to me, the story made no mention of Nazi's being involved.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

I wonder what would happen if the wife (or ex-wife) of a male teacher told the school board "He looks at Playboy". Would the school sack the male teacher? To me, if posing for a Playboy magazine is wrong, than looking at one is just as bad.

What about the fathers who look at Playboy? Should they be banned from the school? Would the school tell someone who worked for Playboy that their children aren't welcome at the school?

If the school finds out that some teenage boy looks at Playboy at home but never brings it to school should that boy be expelled?

 

[Lindley]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

^That's wishful thinking. Maybe such pictures shouldn't undermine authority, but the fact is, they will.

I'm just going to say this again, because I think it sums up the entire issue in a neat little bow.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

^^^ If a teenager found a Playboy magazine in their father's wardrobe would that undermine the father's authority - I doubt it. So hoe can a teacher posing for a Playboy undermine authority?

 

[Lumen]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Participating in the production of something is very different from consuming it. I don't think you can equate the two.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Why would it be any worse? One would not exist without the other. IMO they are on equal par as far as morality goes.

 

[Captain X]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

That wasn't my point. I'm saying that due to teachers having sex with students the schools are on edge and that is why she was fired. I never defended the school's action, as a matter of fact I think it's ridiculous, but I was trying to explain their line of thinking.

Then I guess you could say I was pointing out what a hugely wrong leap in logic that line of thinking is. There were also some people agreeing with it, which is just disturbing on so many levels.

^That's wishful thinking. Maybe such pictures shouldn't undermine authority, but the fact is, they will.

I'm just going to say this again, because I think it sums up the entire issue in a neat little bow.

Nice backpedal, but can you explain how exactly it would undermine anyone's authority? I mean, I remember when I was in 7th grade I had a math teacher who looked like centerfold material, and even dressed somewhat provocatively at times (well provocative in the minds of horny teenagers). All the guys had hard-ons for her, but at the end of the day she was still the teacher and what she said went. And this isn't even a teacher, it's the frakking cheer-leading squad coach.

 

[Gertch]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Why would it be any worse? One would not exist without the other. IMO they are on equal par as far as morality goes.

I disagree. One is posing with no clothes on. The other is looking at car ads.

 

[Lumen]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Why would it be any worse? One would not exist without the other. IMO they are on equal par as far as morality goes.

Because one doesn't have to enter the classroom or really interact with anything else at all. It's not about "morality"; it's about the perception of propriety.

If a teacher poses in Playboy, people see it and can bring that information with them anywhere. You can't stop high school kids from looking at Playboy, nor can you stop the general public from looking at Playboy, and potentially associating the magazine with the school if one of its teachers happens to be in it. But you can stop teachers from bringing their magazines into the classroom.

For what it's worth, a teacher would probably be reprimanded for gratuitously showing their students copies of Playboy, or for leaving such magazines lying around in the classroom.

The point is that the school has decided it has an interest in the public conduct of teachers, not whether their actions are moral. Enjoying a magazine in the privacy of your own house is not public conduct. Posing for said magazine is.

 

[Captain X]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Why would it be any worse? One would not exist without the other. IMO they are on equal par as far as morality goes.

I disagree. One is posing with no clothes on. The other is looking at the pictures of the one posing with no clothes on.

FTFY. Car ads? Is that what you told your mom when she caught you looking at boobies?

 

[Lindley]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

^That's wishful thinking. Maybe such pictures shouldn't undermine authority, but the fact is, they will.

I'm just going to say this again, because I think it sums up the entire issue in a neat little bow.

Nice backpedal,

What? I haven't backpedaled on anything. I'm not even involved in whatever debate you think you're having. Just saying what I think is the heart of the issue, and everything else is peripheral.

but can you explain how exactly it would undermine anyone's authority?

I don't need to lay out the obvious.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

If a teacher brought Playboy into a school I can see a reason for them being fired but that is quite different from appearing in a magazine that children should even be viewing in the first place.

A woman I personally know, Genevieve Picot, is an actress. In one of her movies Proof (which she was the female lead in, and Russell Crowe and Hugo Weaving were the male leads) there was some nudity and Genevieve was seen topless and also had a sex scene. I believe the movie has an M rating meaning that it isn't really suitable for children under 15.

Therefore I would object if a teacher showed it to my 12 year old but it would be OK to show it to my 15 year old.

However despite the fact that I, and my children, knew that she appeared partially naked on screen. I didn't syop her from her interacting with my children. Nor does in mean that Genevieve shouldn't be allowed to teach acting in schools if that is what she wanted to do.

Daniel Radcliffe has appeared totally naked on stage but that doesn't mean that parents don't take their kids to see Harry Potter or teachers should not show the Harry Potter movies at school. I am sure most schools would jump at the opportunity of having Daniel Radcliffe visiting their schools if they could arrange it.

 

[Captain X]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

What? I haven't backpedaled on anything. I'm not even involved in whatever debate you think you're having. Just saying what I think is the heart of the issue, and everything else is peripheral.

Well gee, weren't you arguing from a moral standpoint not all that long ago? I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall seeing your name next to a post to that effect.

I don't need to lay out the obvious.

Humor us. Some of us really don't see how posing in Playboy undermines anyone's authority since their clothes are certainly on when they're at work.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

The only control exists is that which impacts the place of employment.

Exactly. Being attractive and unashamed does not impact teaching; unlike, say, holding extremist religious views.

I signed an NDA at work. I know exactly what you are talking about.

Then why do you keep changing the subject?

Beauty is not immoral. But exposing yourself so that men the world over can drool over you is certainly not moral

Hardly. It's irreligious, but it's far from immoral-- for something to be immoral, some harm must be done.

 

[Lindley]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

What? I haven't backpedaled on anything. I'm not even involved in whatever debate you think you're having. Just saying what I think is the heart of the issue, and everything else is peripheral.

Well gee, weren't you arguing from a moral standpoint not all that long ago? I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall seeing your name next to a post to that effect.

The whole "moral" debate is far too annoying for me to get involved in. I understand and support the school's decision, but that's largely all I've said here. You can't do something like that and expect there not to be some consequences.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

What? I haven't backpedaled on anything. I'm not even involved in whatever debate you think you're having. Just saying what I think is the heart of the issue, and everything else is peripheral.

Well gee, weren't you arguing from a moral standpoint not all that long ago? I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall seeing your name next to a post to that effect.

The whole "moral" debate is far too annoying for me to get involved in. I understand and support the school's decision, but that's largely all I've said here.

Would you support a school's decision if they decided that a well-known and respected actor couldn't visit the school because s/he had appeared in a tasteful nude scene in a movie?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

What if a teacher is a Nudist, and vacations at Nudist resorts?

 

[Gertch]

Re: Give me an F, give me an I, give me a R, give me an E, give me a D

Why would it be any worse? One would not exist without the other. IMO they are on equal par as far as morality goes.

I disagree. One is posing with no clothes on. The other is looking at the pictures of the one posing with no clothes on.

FTFY. Car ads? Is that what you told your mom when she caught you looking at boobies?

I know you were trying to be funny, but in the future, please don't change my quotes. Thank you.

The only control exists is that which impacts the place of employment.

Exactly. Being attractive and unashamed does not impact teaching; unlike, say, holding extremist religious views.

Back to the religious right rant again.

I signed an NDA at work. I know exactly what you are talking about.

Then why do you keep changing the subject?

You keep accusing me of changing the subject. This is about a person who gets fired for breaking the terms of their legally binding contract. What thread do you think it is?